Talk:Lanthanide contraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
All this are the consequenzes of the Lanthanide contraction not the Lanthanide contraction. I always thougt the Lanthanide contraction is that the Lanthanides decrease their ion radii while more and more electrons are added in the periodic table. This happens due to the fact that the electrons are added to a relative low shell and the increasing number of protons atract the new electrons. The effect is the Ion gets smaller with increasing core charge. The results of this are the things mentioned in the article.Stone 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The data given under "cause" do not agree with those under "effect." It appears on the face of it that this is because the ionic radius is discussed in the latter section, atomic radius in the former, but the numbers in the "cause" section look wildly different from those I've seen elsewhere (including the Wiki page on atomic radius). It looks like the numbers in the first section are for ionic radius, but I can't find a match for the ones in the second section. I'm loath to edit it myself, because I can't tell exactly what's going on. atakdoug 05:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, something is very wrong with this article. The Lanthanide contraction is the theory used to explain why the 5d ionic radii are so similar to the 4d ionic radii. What is described in this article is the basics on why atomic radii differ along a period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.245 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed contradict
Whilst adding some content to the intro and a small clarification to the Cause para I have removed the contradict tag as IMHO although the article is not clear I do not think it now contradicts itself. As an aside I was surprised when looking for ionic radii for this article that the wiki data table quotes just one value so I have taken all of the data from Greenwood as a more trustworthy source. Axiosaurus (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
